Vinod Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the appeal (I.A. No.02/2025 allowed); the appeal itself is dismissed with no cost(s), and no appointment or other substantive relief is granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 46 days in filing the instant writ appeal should be condoned (I.A. No.02/2025). +2 more

Court's answer

I.A. No.02/2025, the application for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the appeal, is allowed and the delay is condoned; with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions of the parties, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing WPS No. 1218 of 2024, and the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General (in pursuance of the Court's order dated 17.03.2025) that there is no vacancy on the post of Sub-Inspector sought by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Key takeaways

The writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, with no costs.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 179 of 2025), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 19.03.2025 by Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge (judgment per Ramesh Sinha, CJ). The appellant, who had secured 596.819 marks in the 2011 Sub-Inspector selection but was declared ineligible for exceeding the maximum age limit despite the advertisement's age relaxation for persons who had earlier worked temporarily or permanently with the department, succeeded in two earlier writ petitions (WP(S) No.1563 of 2013, allowed 13.12.2021; WPS No.3124 of 2022, allowed, with direction to reconsider his claim within two weeks). The respondents nonetheless again rejected his claim vide order (Annexure P-1) dated 13.02.2024 on the ground that no less meritorious candidate had been appointed from the wait list. His WPS No.1218 of 2024 was dismissed on 18.11.2024, the Single Judge holding that no right to an appointment order arises unless the appellant pleads and proves that less meritorious candidates were appointed after his rejection, and holding that Shiv Chander More v. Lieutenant Governor, (2014) 11 SCC 744 and State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organization, (2006) 4 SCC 683 turned on different sets of facts. The Division Bench condoned the 46-day delay (I.A. No.02/2025), heard the appeal finally with consent, took note of the Additional Advocate General's submission made in pursuance of the Court's order dated 17.03.2025 that no Sub-Inspector vacancy existed, found no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, and dismissed the writ appeal without costs.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1218 of 2024 (titled Vinod Singh Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.¶¶21
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur · 18.11.2024
Prior proceeding
Advertisement issued in 2011 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector; appellant applied and participated in the selection process.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Appellant was declared ineligible on the ground that he had crossed the maximum age limit, without considering the age relaxation provided in the advertisement itself for persons who had earlier worked temporarily or permanently with the respondent department.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Rejection of the appellant's candidature was challenged in WP(S) No.1563 of 2013, which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.12.2021.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
After the order in the earlier writ petition, the respondents reconsidered the appellant's candidature but again did not issue the order of appointment, stating that no less meritorious candidate than the appellant had been given appointment.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The appellant challenged the letter of communication dated 03.03.2022 in WPS No.3124 of 2022.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
WPS No.3124 of 2022 was allowed and the Coordinate Bench directed reconsideration of the appellant's claim within a period of two weeks.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Even after the two orders in different writ petitions, the respondents again rejected the appellant's claim vide order impugned (Annexure P-1) dated 13.02.2024.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioner contended that the respondents were estopped from taking a new ground for rejecting the candidature of the appellant for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed WPS No.1218 of 2024.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
WPS No.1218 of 2024 was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2024, giving rise to the present writ appeal.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant: in the very same writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed orders on April 16, 2024 and April 25, 2024 directing the respondents to provide an affidavit for the appellant's appointment.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant: the respondents' writ appeal against those interim orders never set them aside; the Division Bench directed the pending writ petition to be decided, which counsel argued operates as res judicata.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
In pursuance of the Court's order dated 17.03.2025, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no vacancy on the post of Sub-Inspector sought by the appellant, rendering the appeal virtually infructuous.¶¶30